3 ms·

Semiconductors are not just about the market for electronics, they are a national defense issue. As the article talked about, relying on chips that can only be

by rswail 6y ago

Semiconductors are not just about the market for electronics, they are a national defense issue. As the article talked about, relying on chips that can only be sourced from allies that are not defensible from your primary potential adversary is a major risk. Why do you think Boeing et al are on the government defense teat? It's not just as a disguised socialist job program and Congressional slush fund. There are some legitimate reasons for government funding. It's not "aid", it's government spending on national defense infrastructure and manufacturing capability.

acqq 6y ago
> It's not "aid" I don't see that claim supported by the text: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-semiconductors/u-s-lawmakers-propose-22-8-billion-in-aid-to-semiconductor-industry-idUSKBN23H39M https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-semiconductors/u-s-la... "A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill to provide more than $22.8 billion in aid for semiconductor manufacturers, aiming to spur the construction of chip factories in America" Do you have some quote to support your claim?
- tharne 6y ago
  It's a bad choice of words on the part of the journalist, but that's journalists for you. "Aid" implies an economic motive, whereas here the motive is very clearly national security. We don't give "aid" to the Marines or the Air Force. We spend public dollars on things are are important to national defense and security. Semiconductors fall into that category.
  - acqq 6y ago
    > whereas here the motive is very clearly national security. It doesn't look as such. As far as I see it's mostly additional tax breaks for the companies that would anyway be awarded taxpayer's money through the defense contracts, and the "security" is a magical excuse for that. The contracts could already have the desired conditions, but this is a way to avoid showing the real cost of them.

by rswail 6y ago

acqq 6y ago

> It's not "aid" I don't see that claim supported by the text: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-semiconductors/u-s-lawmakers-propose-22-8-billion-in-aid-to-semiconductor-industry-idUSKBN23H39M https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-semiconductors/u-s-la... "A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill to provide more than $22.8 billion in aid for semiconductor manufacturers, aiming to spur the construction of chip factories in America" Do you have some quote to support your claim?

tharne 6y ago
It's a bad choice of words on the part of the journalist, but that's journalists for you. "Aid" implies an economic motive, whereas here the motive is very clearly national security. We don't give "aid" to the Marines or the Air Force. We spend public dollars on things are are important to national defense and security. Semiconductors fall into that category.
- acqq 6y ago
  > whereas here the motive is very clearly national security. It doesn't look as such. As far as I see it's mostly additional tax breaks for the companies that would anyway be awarded taxpayer's money through the defense contracts, and the "security" is a magical excuse for that. The contracts could already have the desired conditions, but this is a way to avoid showing the real cost of them.